Miscellaneous. 69 
three tosix short obtuse spines. The madreporic plate is sunk into the 
thick skin. Back rose-coloured ; ventral surface yellowish red. 
The authors remark that from their investigations upon the genus 
Solaster they are led to the conclusion that neither Muller and 
Troschel’s division of the genus into Crossaster and Solaster, nor the 
new genus Lophaster, established for Solaster furcifer, can be sus- 
tained. Their reasons will be given in a forthcoming part of the 
general report upon the results of the expedition. Nyt Magazin 
for Naturvidenskaberne, Bd. xxvi. (1881), pp. 177-194, tab. 1. & il. 
On Dr. Karsch’s Subdivision of the Phrynidia. By A. G. Burtnr. 
My attention has just been called to a short paper in the ‘ Archiv 
fiir Naturgeschichte’ for 1880, in which Dr. Karsch makes an 
effort to answer my criticism upon his previous memoir (see Ann. 
& Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, vol. iv. p. 313); how far he has succeeded 
may be gathered from the following sketch of it. 
Dr. Karsch commences where I left off, with the serious fact that 
his genus Charon was based upon the Phrynus Grayi of Gervais, 
the type of which he had never seen, and which I find does not 
possess the characters ascribed to this genus; and he says that I 
am illogical when I state that this fact necessitates the rejection of 
the generic name “Charon.” Dr. Karsch proceeds to explain why 
this is so: he says that the specimens which he calls P. Grayit 
were so named by Dr. Gerstaecker, and they agree with Hoeven’s 
figure of P. medius. If, then, the species described by M. Gervais 
is distinct, he proposes the name of C. Hoeveni for the P. medius of 
Hoeven, and regards the latter as the type of his genus. I must be 
very obtuse; for I fail entirely to see how this subsequent action on 
the part of Dr. Karsch proves me to have been illogical in rejecting a 
genus which, for all practical purposes, had no type at the time 
when I wrote my article. 
In the second place, it may be a matter for grave question whether 
the genus Charon can be retained under that name, since the type 
is the P. Grayw of Gervais and not the P. Grayw of Gerstaecker or 
Karsch. When a man relies upon the authority of a friend, who, 
however learned he may be, has himself not examined the type 
of a species, and upon that species bases a new genus, he must be 
prepared to see it overturned. But Dr. Karsch says he thinks the 
type of P. Grayii may be a monstrosity, or it may have had its hind 
legs broken off and those of another species stuck on; or, in short, 
any thing may have happened rather than that the generic name 
Charon should be superseded ; and, after a little cogitation, he con- 
vinces himself that something certainly has happened to this type, 
and concludes his paper thus :—“ Figure 4 is the hind leg of Charon, 
and, indeed, of that species which is identical with Phrynus medius, 
Hoeven (nec Herbst), and which I believe must indicate Phrynus 
Graywi, Gerv.” 
The remainder of Dr. Karsch’s paper is taken up with an attempt 
